List Mgmt. Ross Lyon - Sacked

[Scham]

Given that the season is 23 games, the 50 games bullshit is just that. If a player isn't AFL quality or at least feeling very comfortable after 30 games (minimum 18 mths in an elite environment with at least 2 preseasons) then chances are they're never going to be.

50 games can take some players 4 years in an elite environment, its insane to think that they'll only all of a sudden start producing good footy after that time. If that was the case, they'd never get to 50 games, not even near it.

 

[raffrox]

This thread is insane, both sides are cherry picking stats to suit their argument and no one is going to change their mind.

Surely the only stat that matters is grand final wins, if he gets us one by the end of next year then he has been successful, if he hasn't then he has failed and should pack his bags.

I think there is most probably something closer to a common ground there but both sides aren't that great at finding or admitting to it.

I'd say that we are in the mix of teams that are (re)building and see their best years as coming in the near future. That is roughly around 8 teams (in no particular order):

Gold Coast
Carlton
Bulldogs
Saints
Brisbane
North Melbourne (although they have a bet each way imo)
Lions
Freo

We should be able to be compared to all these teams regardless of age profile or whether we have the correct quotient of ranga's in the team etc... We are all fighting on the mix to be relevant. The way to do that is to continually improve.

Last year we finished with 8 wins and a percentage in the 70%'s.

Is there anyone that disputes that we should be aiming for at least 10 wins and a percentage in the 90%'s this year?

No excuses either. All teams have injuries (go check out the Saints injury list), all teams get new players in. No age profiling or anything else is going to convince me that's not the pass mark. If not we are going backwards or stagnating (which is really going backwards anyway).

The team doing much more than that is hoping for more than what we have and much less is condoning failure/mediocrity. If Ross as the figurehead of our footy program can't lead us to this then it's going to very tough for him to stay.

Either side have a strong objection to at least 10 wins and a percentage in the 90%'s this year or Ross is under tremendous pressure?

 

[Bicco]

Given that the season is 23 games, the 50 games bullshit is just that. If a player isn't AFL quality or at least feeling very comfortable after 30 games (minimum 18 mths in an elite environment with at least 2 preseasons) then chances are they're never going to be.

50 games can take some players 4 years in an elite environment, its insane to think that they'll only all of a sudden start producing good footy after that time. If that was the case, they'd never get to 50 games, not even near it.

Its 50 games playing for a club, not 50 games in total.
So it brings on little cohesion pieces such as knowing how far a teamate can kick on his opposite foot (under pressure/on the run), how they get out of packs, who is a good kick on a lead over distance etc.
An elite ball winner will be able to win the ball no matter who they play for, but a less elite player or a forward is obviously going to take time to settle in. The 50 game mark is simply a number where teams that have a lot if these players show signs of success.
You don't have to believe it, and there will always be exceptions.
Its like the squiggle. You could do your tips from it every week but nothing is infallible.

 

[kingswood71]

I think there is most probably something closer to a common ground there but both sides aren't that great at finding or admitting to it.

I'd say that we are in the mix of teams that are (re)building and see their best years as coming in the near future. That is roughly around 8 teams (in no particular order):

Gold Coast
Carlton
Bulldogs
Saints
Brisbane
North Melbourne (although they have a bet each way imo)
Lions
Freo

We should be able to be compared to all these teams regardless of age profile or whether we have the correct quotient of ranga's in the team etc... We are all fighting on the mix to be relevant. The way to do that is to continually improve.

Last year we finished with 8 wins and a percentage in the 70%'s.

Is there anyone that disputes that we should be aiming for at least 10 wins and a percentage in the 90%'s this year?

No excuses either. All teams have injuries (go check out the Saints injury list), all teams get new players in. No age profiling or anything else is going to convince me that's not the pass mark. If not we are going backwards or stagnating (which is really going backwards anyway).

The team doing much more than that is hoping for more than what we have and much less is condoning failure/mediocrity. If Ross as the figurehead of our footy program can't lead us to this then it's going to very tough for him to stay.

Either side have a strong objection to at least 10 wins and a percentage in the 90%'s this year or Ross is under tremendous pressure?

Quite a well reasoned post....What is it doing in here?? ha ha
To answer your question: 10 wins and 90% would be the bare base pass mark for me...It shows we have improved (or that the teams around us have gone backwards)...
However, my ideal pass mark is somewhere around 7-9....12-13 wins. If we are serious about GF in 2020, close to (or playing finals 2019) seems a logical step.

 

[hoss]

Have to give players time to settle in. They will and once they begin to gel, watch out for some surprise results. I remember it took Josh Carr a full year to settle in.

On Pixel 2 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[PurpleEyes]

You ignored my question though. Who do you think we can be compared to?

I think you've got to be a little careful basing your view on a statistic you personally just made up. Do you have any statistical basis for 50+ games at one club being any sort of useful metric? Any analysis that puts guys like McCarthy, Matera, Lobb, Hamling, Hogan, Colyer, Wilson, B.Hill and Conca in the inexperienced basket is ridiculous. Naturally of course better teams will have more players that have played 50 games at that club. That doesn't necessarily mean the number of games played at a club means anything. I'd argue that games played in total means far, far more and shades that statistic completely. Correlation doesn't imply causality remember.

Would you excuse poor performances from a guy like Bryce Gibbs because he's played less than 50 games at Adelaide?

I ignored your question because there is very little correlation between how Freo will go, based on another "supposedly" comparable team.
Brisbane are nothing like Fremantle apart from both teams have been unsuccessful in the last few years.
Brisbane have had far greater draft picks than Freo. As I posted, their younger less experienced players are mostly round 1 picks.
Trying to make comparisons between Brisbane and Freo is simply done because it brings the conversation back to nonsensical subjective opinions ... which is where the anti-lyon mob need the conversation to be.

Posting statements like "Correlation doesn't imply causality" is so typical of posters who need to dismiss overwhelming evidence that is contrary to their beliefs. And it doesn't even apply to this conversation, because I have continually tried to demonstrate how that 50+ club game stat is an indicator (supported by strong correlations to team premierships in the last 20years) of the cohesion and health of a team. At no point have I said that high 50+ club game players ensures a premiership. On the contrary, I have showed that having very low numbers suggests you probably won't win a premiership. The average for the last 20 years is over 16. Freo currently have 5. If you can't acknowledge that then maybe it is because you prefer posts cheering on "coach killing games".

 

[raffrox]

I ignored your question because there is very little correlation between how Freo will go, based on another "supposedly" comparable team.
Brisbane are nothing like Fremantle apart from both teams have been unsuccessful in the last few years.
Brisbane have had far greater draft picks than Freo. As I posted, their younger less experienced players are mostly round 1 picks.
Trying to make comparisons between Brisbane and Freo is simply done because it brings the conversation back to nonsensical subjective opinions ... which is where the anti-lyon mob need the conversation to be.

Posting statements like "Correlation doesn't imply causality" is so typical of posters who need to dismiss overwhelming evidence that is contrary to their beliefs. And it doesn't even apply to this conversation, because I have continually tried to demonstrate how that 50+ club game stat is an indicator (supported by strong correlations to team premierships in the last 20years) of the cohesion and health of a team. At no point have I said that high 50+ club game players ensures a premiership. On the contrary, I have showed that having very low numbers suggests you probably won't win a premiership. The average for the last 20 years is over 16. Freo currently have 5. If you can't acknowledge that then maybe it is because you prefer posts cheering on "coach killing games".

I love people who refute the apparent blinking thinking of others by being completely blinkered.

The fact that Brad Hill who has won a B&F with our club and Joel Hamling who is a premiership FB and aren't included in the 50 game with our team number means that questioning your current methodology is far from irrational.

 

[raffrox]

PurpleEyes you haven't replied to any of my posts in a while. Just wondering if you've got me on ignore?

Given I feel I've been pretty rational about what I've said I don't know why that would be the case.

 

[jedi mind tricks]

What do Trevor and Howard have to say about Rosco?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Most of the guys who go to training. Not referring to posters know sfa. They may be fanatical but that's about it.

 

[jedi mind tricks]

I have honestly created the worst thread on the Freo board.

Bit disappointed in myself. No wonder many posters have stopped. This board is full of negative plebs that soak up the fun on here.

 

[PurpleEyes]

Given that the season is 23 games, the 50 games bullshit is just that. If a player isn't AFL quality or at least feeling very comfortable after 30 games (minimum 18 mths in an elite environment with at least 2 preseasons) then chances are they're never going to be.

50 games can take some players 4 years in an elite environment, its insane to think that they'll only all of a sudden start producing good footy after that time. If that was the case, they'd never get to 50 games, not even near it.

My stat is one that shows the Team's health. It is not meant to be an accurate indicator of the worth of one individual player's experience. So, my stat is not going to perfectly show that there are or are not only 5 experienced players in Freo's team. What it does show is that Freo doesn't have a great team of players that are used to playing along side each other. Which, given the historical data I have studied appears to be very important.
(NB: I have studied in detail my stat for not only the last 20 premiers, but also the history of Freo and 6 other AFL clubs. The resulting data correlates very well to the clubs success and rebuild/team health status).

The Anti-lyon mob continually try to dismiss my stat, simply because it overwhelmingly shows that Freo is very much still at the infancy of our rebuild.
I do believe that the good news is, we are at the bottom (as quantified by our 5 x 50+ club game players) and now on the improve.

And I don't expect you to understand or like my stat ... not when you're liking posts cheering for a coach killing game.

 

[malpaso]

Honestly some of the negative diatribe on here should be saved for at the minimum the second half of the season if we are indeed in dire straits and pathetic. There are far too many posters on here who contribute nothing but negativity, most likely due to the fact they are heavy gamblers and keep burning their money on dumb footy bets. Save it for closer to the off-season fellas.

I just enjoy watching us play acknowledging that we are a young team with NEW players playing a prominent role, until we get more games together it's going to take time, we saw what it can produce in Round 1. We also know we are capable of stopping teams from scoring. Those two factors will combine throughout the season in a more positive sense I've no doubt.

Chin up all.

 

[theGav56]

Would you excuse poor performances from a guy like Bryce Gibbs because he's played less than 50 games at Adelaide?

My un-asked for reply to this is, in the short term, yes, but not for long. Perhaps 5-10 games to settle in, but closer to the 5 than the 10. But I'd also expect them to be making a reasonable contribution before then, just not at their peak. Of course if they are like Hogan and coming off an injury/recovery period and haven't been able to full participate in training, a bit longer is fine. Or again, like Hogan, coming into a forward line bereft of established players, perhaps a little leeway. Neale hasn't missed a beat, and how about Tiger Tom.

 

[PurpleEyes]

That's because we got a lot of new experienced players in the last two years. What happens ifHogan, Wilson BHill, Conca, Lobb, Colyer, Hamling, McCarthy and Matera are added to the number?

Gee whiz, now it's 14. All those guys are legit AFL players who are paid to perform. That group includes our best shut down defender and our current leading goal kicker and a B&F winner for starters.

I don't think you can use the '50 games for the club' figure. If you have played 50 games then you are an established AFL player.

If those players are important to Freo's success, then they will continue to get games in our B22 and eventually will be included in my stat (B.Hill, Hamling and McCarthy all possibly by the end of 2019).
If they don't, then that is evidence of why my stat works.

 

[Square Peg]

I have honestly created the worst thread on the Freo board.

Bit disappointed in myself. No wonder many posters have stopped. This board is full of negative plebs that soak up the fun on here.

I might own up to the negative tag on occasions, but I'll be stuffed if I am going to be called a pleb by the likes of you

 

[dockerfemme]

My stat is one that shows the Team's health. It is not meant to be an accurate indicator of the worth of one individual player's experience. So, my stat is not going to perfectly show that there are or are not only 5 experienced players in Freo's team. What it does show is that Freo doesn't have a great team of players that are used to playing along side each other. Which, given the historical data I have studied appears to be very important.
(NB: I have studied in detail my stat for not only the last 20 premiers, but also the history of Freo and 6 other AFL clubs. The resulting data correlates very well to the clubs success and rebuild/team health status).

The Anti-lyon mob continually try to dismiss my stat, simply because it overwhelmingly shows that Freo is very much still at the infancy of our rebuild.
I do believe that the good news is, we are at the bottom (as quantified by our 5 x 50+ club game players) and now on the improve.

And I don't expect you to understand or like my stat ... not when you're liking posts cheering for a coach killing game.

I am a person who likes numbers and I am interested by your stat.

I think many question that the 50 game benchmark is a valid one for experienced footballers that come in from other clubs. We have played 9 from other clubs the last couple of weeks (4 new to the club this year) and I think this is a high number. I looked at Hawthorn's threepeat teams and, although they were known for getting players from other clubs, the highest number they had from other clubs was 7.

I am interested in the other teams you have looked at that have had a high number of players from other clubs and how the performance of those teams have changed. That is if you have time to post some more info.

 

[jedi mind tricks]

I might own up to the negative tag on occasions, but I'll be stuffed if I am going to be called a pleb by the likes of you

All good mate

It's a broad sweeping statement.

 

[theGav56]

I think there is most probably something closer to a common ground there but both sides aren't that great at finding or admitting to it.

I'd say that we are in the mix of teams that are (re)building and see their best years as coming in the near future. That is roughly around 8 teams (in no particular order):

Gold Coast
Carlton
Bulldogs
Saints
Brisbane
North Melbourne (although they have a bet each way imo)
Lions
Freo

We should be able to be compared to all these teams regardless of age profile or whether we have the correct quotient of ranga's in the team etc... We are all fighting on the mix to be relevant. The way to do that is to continually improve.

Last year we finished with 8 wins and a percentage in the 70%'s.

Is there anyone that disputes that we should be aiming for at least 10 wins and a percentage in the 90%'s this year?

No excuses either. All teams have injuries (go check out the Saints injury list), all teams get new players in. No age profiling or anything else is going to convince me that's not the pass mark. If not we are going backwards or stagnating (which is really going backwards anyway).

The team doing much more than that is hoping for more than what we have and much less is condoning failure/mediocrity. If Ross as the figurehead of our footy program can't lead us to this then it's going to very tough for him to stay.

Either side have a strong objection to at least 10 wins and a percentage in the 90%'s this year or Ross is under tremendous pressure?

I agree with that aim, but doubt if Lyon would be under pressure as such, unless by under pressure you are meaning nobody is pulling him aside to negotiate a contract extension. The media will speculate a stir the pot regardless, and some posters will follow along.

I doubt the club would have those as KPIs, but if we came in below 10 wins we would need to start 2020 very strongly to stop the search for a new coach, and even then....

I just think either way it falls Lyon is highly likely to see out his contract, be it with or without an extension.

 

[youmewe]

Richmond had 13 players who have played 50+ games for the club on the weekend.
Freo had 5.
The average for all 18 teams for Round 4 was between 11 & 12.
Freo have had 5 in all four rounds so far in 2019, the lowest in every round.

Actually Richmond only had 10.

Caddy 45, Prestia 39, Broad 34, Menadue 34, Graham 27, Higgins 24, Bolton 10, Baker 4, Lynch 4, Balta 3, Stack 2 and Ross 1 = 12 players who have played fewer than 50 games for Richmond.

Your 50 games for a club stat is hardly rocket science. What it basically boils down to is: teams filled with mature aged, matured bodied players who have played together for some years are more likely to win a premiership than teams filled with 20 year olds who have played a handful of games.

In any given year you might expect something like 4 clubs to be actively pursuing a rebuilding programme, which means the other 14 clubs aren't.

Fourteen 'mature' clubs v four rebuilding clubs. Which group is likely to contain the premiers? Of those 14 mature clubs nearly half will completely miss the finals, let alone win a flag.

BTW so far in 2019:
Teams with more players who have played 50+ games for their team: 14 wins.
Teams with fewer players who have played 50+ games for their team: 20 wins.
In two games both teams had equal players who have played 50+ games for their team.

In games where one team has had 3 or more players (than their opposition) who have played 50+ games for their team, the team with significantly fewer 50+ club gamers has a 14-8 lead. Early season I know, but go figure.

Only three clubs have fielded teams containing 14 or more 50+ club gamers in every round this season: Adelaide, Collingwood and Sydney.

Two of them are basically out of finals contention and Collingwood are not travelling as well as they would like to be.

 

[PurpleEyes]

I am a person who likes numbers and I am interested by your stat.

I think many question that the 50 game benchmark is a valid one for experienced footballers that come in from other clubs. We have played 9 from other clubs the last couple of weeks (4 new to the club this year) and I think this is a high number. I looked at Hawthorn's threepeat teams and, although they were known for getting players from other clubs, the highest number they had from other clubs was 7.

I am interested in the other teams you have looked at that have had a high number of players from other clubs and how the performance of those teams have changed. That is if you have time to post some more info.

I have just looked at the last 10 years of premiership teams.
They have a combined total of 48 traded in players (not unique, ie. Burgoyne 3). 28 had played 50+ games for those premiership teams at the time of that premiership.
And yes, Hawthorn during their 3peat had 7 traded in players each year (4 '13&'14 or 5 '15 had played 50+ games for Hawthorn at the time of premiership win).
West Coast last year had 6, 4 of which had 50+ games.

 

[raffrox]

I agree with that aim, but doubt if Lyon would be under pressure as such, unless by under pressure you are meaning nobody is pulling him aside to negotiate a contract extension. The media will speculate a stir the pot regardless, and some posters will follow along.

I doubt the club would have those as KPIs, but if we came in below 10 wins we would need to start 2020 very strongly to stop the search for a new coach, and even then....

I just think either way it falls Lyon is highly likely to see out his contract, be it with or without an extension.

Fair enough. That would be down to the leadership of the team then and what actions they take if we fell short.

I'd hope we'd have the courage to take action and not just see the contract out if we weren't seen to be progressing though but I acknowledge thats not a given.

 

[PurpleEyes]

Actually Richmond only had 10.

Caddy 45, Prestia 39, Broad 34, Menadue 34, Graham 27, Higgins 24, Bolton 10, Baker 4, Lynch 4, Balta 3, Stack 2 and Ross 1 = 12 players who have played fewer than 50 games for Richmond.

Your 50 games for a club stat is hardly rocket science. What it basically boils down to is: teams filled with mature aged, matured bodied players who have played together for some years are more likely to win a premiership than teams filled with 20 year olds who have played a handful of games.

In any given year you might expect something like 4 clubs to be actively pursuing a rebuilding programme, which means the other 14 clubs aren't.

Fourteen 'mature' clubs v four rebuilding clubs. Which group is likely to contain the premiers? Of those 14 mature clubs nearly half will completely miss the finals, let alone win a flag.

BTW so far in 2019:
Teams with more players who have played 50+ games for their team: 14 wins.
Teams with fewer players who have played 50+ games for their team: 20 wins.
In two games both teams had equal players who have played 50+ games for their team.

In games where one team has had 3 or more players (than their opposition) who have played 50+ games for their team, the team with significantly fewer 50+ club gamers has a 14-8 lead. Early season I know, but go figure.

Only three clubs have fielded teams containing 14 or more 50+ club gamers in every round this season: Adelaide, Collingwood and Sydney.

Two of them are basically out of finals contention and Collingwood are not travelling as well as they would like to be.

Yep, good post. My apologies for the Richmond mistake (I will go Edit that post). It takes some effort to collate all the data and so I wrongly referred to my spreadsheet which had copied stats for Richmond from Round 1 & Round 2 (I hadn't updated for Round 3 & 4 at that stage).

I had also recently done similar analysis to what you have done on the individual games for the season and noted that so far, there is little correlation in individual Home and Away games win/loss.
Note that the current average so far is about 11 per team. The average for premiers in the last 20 years is 16. So far, I think (data not validated) that Collingwood Round2 (16) are the only team to have had over 15 so far this season.
I expect this to change as the season wears on, and the more dominant teams settle with their starting 22, but in any case, my stat is presented to demonstrate where Freo are at in regards to our rebuild and being a likely premiership contender.

 

[theGav56]

Fair enough. That would be down to the leadership of the team then and what actions they take if we fell short.

I'd hope we'd have the courage to take action and not just see the contract out if we weren't seen to be progressing though but I acknowledge thats not a given.

They would possibly "take action" if they had a coaching prospect they preferred. They won't cut an established coach during a rebuild and just post in the Situations Vacant pages to see who applies though. That's how you end up with Drum or Neeld.

None of our last 3 coaches were actually selected by advertising the job were they? The club may have gone through the motions, but the decision was in place.

I would be amazed if Bell and co didn't actually have an active shortlist of possibles, maybe even some occasional cups of coffee. He could suss out thePav occasionally, or meet up with MacPharlin for a quinoa burger and a chin wag. Who knows who he has on speed dial. Longmuir? Rats?

 

[arsesmart]

I am a person who likes numbers and I am interested by your stat.

I think many question that the 50 game benchmark is a valid one for experienced footballers that come in from other clubs. We have played 9 from other clubs the last couple of weeks (4 new to the club this year) and I think this is a high number. I looked at Hawthorn's threepeat teams and, although they were known for getting players from other clubs, the highest number they had from other clubs was 7.

I am interested in the other teams you have looked at that have had a high number of players from other clubs and how the performance of those teams have changed. That is if you have time to post some more info.

I think this time playing together is a largely overlooked component when judging the likelihood of performance. It really struck home for me when Freo brought in Josh Carr and he was seen by many pundits as a key plank in transforming an up and coming developing side into finals regular. yet the side spluttered through his first year here (2005) and able to hit some beautiful form late in his second year. Ever since I've always been wary of bringing big recruits in and having huge expectations on plug'n'play transformations (see Chris Tarrant).

I tend to think there are a number of other factors in there too, like how crucial the role the import is going to play, are they seen as a saviour and does their position require a lot of synchronicity with other players in the team. Either which way there's likely some disruption to team dynamics.

There's been a few studies that have looked into this. Here's one I found with a quick Google https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0460-y (which basically shows that past shared success increases the likelihood of future success).

I also recall seeing a study done a few years back where they reviewed the difference between teams that developed together vs those that had a lot of already developed players brought in, which was a European sports study from memory.

I've looked at building a database on it myself for the AFL, but getting access to the right stats (i.e. games played together) takes more time (and/or money) than I've been willing to muster.

 

[poshman]

Anyway - thought we performed better than expected against the reigning premiers. A lot to be positive about! Looking forward to seeing how we back up against GWS this week.